I know that Byzantine Christians always recieve under both kinds. But, do they believe that Christ is fully present under each species or must both species be recieved in order to recieve the whole Christ?

Papist, yes, Christ is fully present under both species.

When newly baptized infants receive their first Communion, often times they'll just receive a tiny drop of wine from the chalice for obvious practical reasons. (although I've seen infants receive both as well). People with severe forms of Celiac disease also receive "only" the wine from the chalice. (at least I've seen it that way, I'm sure some with Celiac receive both) I've been an Altar server for 6 years, have attended 100's, maybe 1000's of services where at least one person receives Communion (including baptisms etc), and have stood at the cup as an Altar server and seen many 1000's of people (over the years) receive Communion, and it's certainly true from every Orthodox priest I've served under, says, and proclaims by their application of distributing Communion, that Christ is fully present in both species. While it is the "norm" to receive both species, from the mingled cup, there are exceptions, as stated above. This again, doesn't take into consideration the Western rite Orthodox, whom, I admit I'm quite ignorant of, but considering they're probably following a pre-vatican II tradition, I assume they're receiving Christ as Catholics did before Vatican II, under the bread only? (but I admit I'm just guessing on that issue)

Even if that's not the case, Christ is present in both; either that or I've seen dozens of people only receive "half of Christ" for the last 6 years!

I have heard recently that there are some RC Churches (Califronia I think?) that are offering the wine in individual paper cups because of fear of the swine flu.

Apparently the blood of God can become diseased. Interesting.

What? You don't think that its possible for some one to catch a cold when the last person who drank from the chalice had a cold?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I have heard recently that there are some RC Churches (Califronia I think?) that are offering the wine in individual paper cups because of fear of the swine flu.

I can only hope that this is not true.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I know that Byzantine Christians always recieve under both kinds. But, do they believe that Christ is fully present under each species or must both species be recieved in order to recieve the whole Christ?

Papist, yes, Christ is fully present under both species.

When newly baptized infants receive their first Communion, often times they'll just receive a tiny drop of wine from the chalice for obvious practical reasons. (although I've seen infants receive both as well). People with severe forms of Celiac disease also receive "only" the wine from the chalice. (at least I've seen it that way, I'm sure some with Celiac receive both) I've been an Altar server for 6 years, have attended 100's, maybe 1000's of services where at least one person receives Communion (including baptisms etc), and have stood at the cup as an Altar server and seen many 1000's of people (over the years) receive Communion, and it's certainly true from every Orthodox priest I've served under, says, and proclaims by their application of distributing Communion, that Christ is fully present in both species. While it is the "norm" to receive both species, from the mingled cup, there are exceptions, as stated above. This again, doesn't take into consideration the Western rite Orthodox, whom, I admit I'm quite ignorant of, but considering they're probably following a pre-vatican II tradition, I assume they're receiving Christ as Catholics did before Vatican II, under the bread only? (but I admit I'm just guessing on that issue)

Even if that's not the case, Christ is present in both; either that or I've seen dozens of people only receive "half of Christ" for the last 6 years!

NP

Fantastic. Thanks for the answer. BTW, I am still working on that thing OS article. I ran into a snag yesterday.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I have heard recently that there are some RC Churches (Califronia I think?) that are offering the wine in individual paper cups because of fear of the swine flu.

Apparently the blood of God can become diseased. Interesting.

Not to scandalize anyone here, but the blood of Christ can also be infested with insects! I know a priest who has had this happen once where a dozen fruit flies landed in the cup, (because the cloth wasn't put on completely buy the deacon), and the priest drank down the chalice, with the fruit flies in there after Liturgy. Were the fruit flies no longer flies because they touched the body and blood of Jesus Christ? Granted the bread and wine changes into the body and blood of Christ, but certainly not everything that touches it after the consecration is changed too.

Why would flies not be prevented from landing in the chalice and remain flies, but microscopic lifeforms such as a virus would be prevented from landing in their and remaining a virus? I'm not saying we should all be freaking out about this and refuse Communion based on this, but I just don't buy that rational that "God's blood cannot become diseased". Faith is one thing, yet faith must be balanced with common sense and without tempting the Lord our God. I'm not saying that you're suggesting we "tempt" God, but there are oh so many practical reasons why spreading the swine flu through the common cup (in the Orthodox practice) is unlikely that has nothing to do with "faith" but practical applications by the priest and what happens behind the iconostasis when the gifts are prepared....with that said, if a true pandemic broke out, I would be hesitant to take Communion from the common cup, especially if the Church was full of severely ill people. (actually if the Church was full of violently ill people I'd be running for the hills LONG before Communion time...lol!)

Maybe I'm weak in faith, and am just not strong enough...that could very well be. But just because a virus ends up in the chalice, doesn't mean the blood is "diseased"....at least IMO!

The priest is not depriving us of anything as Christ is fully present under each species. Either way we get the whole Christ.

... but why specifically the clergy are allowed to receive Christ in BOTH ways whilst the laity always under ONE form?

Because some one has to receive it under both forms so that the Chalice is consumed and not left. But not everyone needs to receive it under both forms because he is fully present under both species.

This does not answer my question:

Why and by whom are the clergy "chosen" to consume the chalice? Who makes that distinction: The clergy are supposed to consume the chalice, not the laity?

We have always believed that because the Priest acts as the head of the community, and is the one offering the Holy Sacrifice (because offering a sacrifice is what a priest does) at least he must consume both species.Any one planning on answering my question?

I don't know the official answer but I know I cant live with my body and blood separated. I would think that such a method of serving the Eucharist is flawed. I could begin to analyze the percentages 50/50 or such the like . When the the Catholic Church begin doing this?

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

The priest is not depriving us of anything as Christ is fully present under each species. Either way we get the whole Christ.

... but why specifically the clergy are allowed to receive Christ in BOTH ways whilst the laity always under ONE form?

Because some one has to receive it under both forms so that the Chalice is consumed and not left. But not everyone needs to receive it under both forms because he is fully present under both species.

This does not answer my question:

Why and by whom are the clergy "chosen" to consume the chalice? Who makes that distinction: The clergy are supposed to consume the chalice, not the laity?

We have always believed that because the Priest acts as the head of the community, and is the one offering the Holy Sacrifice (because offering a sacrifice is what a priest does) at least he must consume both species.Any one planning on answering my question?

I don't know the official answer but I know I cant live with my body and blood separated. I would think that such a method of serving the Eucharist is flawed. I could begin to analyze the percentages 50/50 or such the like . When the the Catholic Church begin doing this?

Receiveing the Eurcharist as the latins do (seperate species) is the more ancient practice going back to the early Church. Also, we don't believe that we are separating Christ's body and blood because we believe that he is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Host alone. Likewise, He is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Chalice alone as well.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

What? You don't think that its possible for some one to catch a cold when the last person who drank from the chalice had a cold?

Would that mean that Christ had a case of the sniffles then? Ridiculous.

Not at all. It just means that there are germs on the Eucharist. I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist can get Jesus sick. However, I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist cannot get me sick.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Not at all. It just means that there are germs on the Eucharist. I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist can get Jesus sick. However, I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist cannot get me sick.

A great story illustrating this point is one about St John of San Francisco. Once he was taking the Eucharist to a women in the hospital who was in the final stages of rabies....

Quote

He served the Holy Mysteries to a woman dying of rabies, and immediately after doing so, she had a fit, foaming at the mouth, and spitting up the Holy Gifts. Knowing that the Holy Gifts cannot be thrown away, St. John immediately picked them up and swallowed them, himself, even though rabies is extremely contagious and routinely fatal. He said, “Nothing with happen; these are the Holy Gifts!” and he spoke the truth.

Not at all. It just means that there are germs on the Eucharist. I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist can get Jesus sick. However, I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist cannot get me sick.

A great story illustrating this point is one about St John of San Francisco. Once he was taking the Eucharist to a women in the hospital who was in the final stages of rabies....

Quote

He served the Holy Mysteries to a woman dying of rabies, and immediately after doing so, she had a fit, foaming at the mouth, and spitting up the Holy Gifts. Knowing that the Holy Gifts cannot be thrown away, St. John immediately picked them up and swallowed them, himself, even though rabies is extremely contagious and routinely fatal. He said, “Nothing with happen; these are the Holy Gifts!” and he spoke the truth.

I am not so sure that you are correct Papist...

I know I am correct. The Eucharist is not magic. It doesn't disinfect everything that it touches.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 11:45:46 AM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I don't know the official answer but I know I cant live with my body and blood separated. I would think that such a method of serving the Eucharist is flawed. I could begin to analyze the percentages 50/50 or such the like . When the the Catholic Church begin doing this?

[/quote]

The most ancient practice is to partake of the two species seperately, and in fact priests in EO'y do just that. Only after the priests and deacons consume, is the 'bread' put into the chalice. Certainly Jesus is alive and present before then. The OO (at least the Copts) still partake both seperately, everyone taking one form....then everyone taking the other...and yes, Communion in the Coptic Church takes a LONG time. The last time I attended, it must have been 45 minutes just for communion, and it wasn't exactly a Cathedral or anything, and not even a feast day, just a "regular" Sunday, and just a regular medium sized parish. I suppose this might be one of the reasons the Byzantine Churches began distributing in the same Chalice....imagine Communion in Hagia Sophia, where everyone was partaking seperately. It would take probably hours.....(OTH St. john Chrysostom oftened complained too few were taking Communion, so my theory may be full of holes here...)

I have a feeling the same reasoning was partly responsible for doing only the bread in the West, but again, that's just a guess.

The OO, had history went different, probably would have taken a similar approach, but with persecutions, and their population being kept down, it probably never truly became an issue one way or the other. (again, this is all pure speculation on my part, and of course, the Coptic Church i attended only had one priest...I suppose with multiple priests it might go much quicker, as it does in an EO Church, but still, technically it would be twice as slow)

Again, just historical speculation on my part, but it makes sense to me anyhow!

But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them? And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed. But then when infants receive, I've seen priests only give them the "Blood". One priest said infants should not receive at a Pre-Sanctified Liturgy as the wine is not consecrated. Sometimes there is just so much confusion between different ways priests do things.

But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them? And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed.

Very good point! When I was a Roman Catholic, there was a peiod of time when the priest kept finding the wafer host stuck under the pew with a wad of bubble gum. The priest was irrate--the laity were horrified. The priests and the Eucharistic ministers had to begin watching very closely that the people consumed the host before they walked away.

But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them? And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed. But then when infants receive, I've seen priests only give them the "Blood". One priest said infants should not receive at a Pre-Sanctified Liturgy as the wine is not consecrated. Sometimes there is just so much confusion between different ways priests do things.

Father Bless .If the wine isn't consecrated But The Body Is ..When it touches the Wine ,doesn't it make it Holy and it become Blood of Christ..The Passage the Lord mentions can't remember it exactly About the altar and the objects on it how one makes the other Holy and sanctified....

But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them? And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed. But then when infants receive, I've seen priests only give them the "Blood". One priest said infants should not receive at a Pre-Sanctified Liturgy as the wine is not consecrated. Sometimes there is just so much confusion between different ways priests do things.

Father Bless .If the wine isn't consecrated But The Body Is ..When it touches the Wine ,doesn't it make it Holy and it become Blood of Christ..The Passage the Lord mentions can't remember it exactly About the altar and the objects on it how one makes the other Holy and sanctified....

I was originally told the wine remains wine, that's why when the Lamb is prepared some of the Blood is touched to it. Its the same with the Gifts that are prepared on Holy Thursday to be reserved throughout the year for the sick. It would seem wine is added to soften the Bread to make it easier for the person to consume.

My son is always given the tiniest drop of wine with a miniscule crumb of bread in it. He opens his mouth so wide and looks so happy to receive. I always feel bad because I end up smiling so big and giggling a little to watch him receive so happily. Most people are so solemn and serious when they approach the cup. So I really stick out with my big grin and my son with his mouth open anticipating with a big smile on his face.

My Catholic friend can't understand why/how my son is able to receive at all. But that is another topic altogether.....

My son is always given the tiniest drop of wine with a miniscule crumb of bread in it. He opens his mouth so wide and looks so happy to receive. I always feel bad because I end up smiling so big and giggling a little to watch him receive so happily. Most people are so solemn and serious when they approach the cup. So I really stick out with my big grin and my son with his mouth open anticipating with a big smile on his face.

My Catholic friend can't understand why/how my son is able to receive at all. But that is another topic altogether.....

It would really blow your Catholic friend's mind if he knew that (Eastern) CATHOLIC infants can receive communion, too!

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

My son is always given the tiniest drop of wine with a miniscule crumb of bread in it. He opens his mouth so wide and looks so happy to receive. I always feel bad because I end up smiling so big and giggling a little to watch him receive so happily. Most people are so solemn and serious when they approach the cup. So I really stick out with my big grin and my son with his mouth open anticipating with a big smile on his face.

My Catholic friend can't understand why/how my son is able to receive at all. But that is another topic altogether.....

Caitlin is the same way when she goes to commune. She looks like a baby bird with her mouth wide open and she's just learned to kiss the chalice, so that always makes me laugh too. It's no wonder Christ said we had to become like children. They have such an eagerness for Him that makes us over-rational adults look like bumps on a log.

Logged

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams

The guys that help with the catch cloth (two guys stand on either side of the chalice with a cloth to catch the drops that fall and to wipe mouths. We receive on a spoon) always look at me like I am insane coming up smiling so big.

Not at all. It just means that there are germs on the Eucharist. I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist can get Jesus sick. However, I would never be so silly as to suggest that germs on the Eucharist cannot get me sick.

A great story illustrating this point is one about St John of San Francisco. Once he was taking the Eucharist to a women in the hospital who was in the final stages of rabies....

Quote

He served the Holy Mysteries to a woman dying of rabies, and immediately after doing so, she had a fit, foaming at the mouth, and spitting up the Holy Gifts. Knowing that the Holy Gifts cannot be thrown away, St. John immediately picked them up and swallowed them, himself, even though rabies is extremely contagious and routinely fatal. He said, “Nothing with happen; these are the Holy Gifts!” and he spoke the truth.

I am not so sure that you are correct Papist...

St. Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake once as well, and just "shook it off"....

Jesus said, "if you drink any deadly thing it will not harm you" and that we're to "take up serpents".....I don't take those promises of Christ, and St. Paul's example to mean that if I'm bitten by a cobra I won't die without treatment. And yet Paul was bitten, and did not die.

The story about St. John doesn't "prove" anything, except that, yes he was a saint. I'm SURE because of his holiness, his great faith and trust in and love for God, and His love for the Holy Eucharist had some part to play in that event. I honestly cannot believe that if I had consumed the remaining Eucharist, the same thing would have occurred with me. It's not that the Eucharist can become "contaminated", but viruses and germs are microscopic organisms that can land "on" the body and blood. Its not like there is an invisible forcefield around the chalice. Again if fruit flies can land there, why can't microscopic "bugs"?

I understand what you're saying, and for those who have that faith, the faith of St. John of San Francisco, the faith of St. Paul, that's great. I just don't necessarily think such an event "proves" anything about the Eucharist itself, per se.....certainly St. John's sainthood, but not necessarily the Eucharist. The Eucharist isn't magic, and I think that is what Papist is trying to say. Stories of SAINTS doing wondrous miracles proves their saint hood (IMO), but that doesn't mean EVERYONE can follow suit and do exactly as they did. I mean St. Herman befriended a Kodiak bear, that doesn't mean EVERYONE can befriend a kodiak bear.

St. Paul was bitten and "should" have died, but didn't. And yet I'm pretty sure if I were bitten by a poisonous snake, and didn't get treatment, I would die. That doesn't make Jesus a liar, or his promise not true, it simply means my faith isn't strong enough AND I've not acheived a level of theosis that would allow me to do such a thing. (it's not just about faith like some protestants believe, but Theosis as well that makes these miracles possible) Both things go hand in hand. I'm not saying the Eucharist doesn't provide protection from sicknesses and diseases, because it most certainly does. (otherwise priests would be constantly sick) But is this because microscopic bugs cannot land on it, or is this because of the healing properties of the Eucharist itself? Or something else entirely? In the end it really doesn't matter as far I'm concerned. Because by doing what we're doing I think we're being a bit to scientific about the whole thing. I guess I'm just saying that just because precautions are taken in the Catholic Church doesn't somehow "disprove" their sacraments....because as an Altar server I know precautions are taken in our Church as well, which simply goes unseen by 99% of the congregation who've never seen these precautions.

Trust in God, have faith that the Eucharist will not make you sick, (as I do) but let us not tempt God by assuming that no matter what we do, that that protection will always be there, because I just don't see God working that way in history. Again that's how I see it, and I may very well be wrong.

What I've always wondered is this: Christ said to His apostles in the institution of the Eucharist... "And He took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying 'Drink ye all of it.'"

Now how can you drink if you are not given the wine?

But he told his Apotles to drink. He didn't say that we all have to drink.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

What I've always wondered is this: Christ said to His apostles in the institution of the Eucharist... "And He took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying 'Drink ye all of it.'"

Now how can you drink if you are not given the wine?

But he told his Apotles to drink. He didn't say that we all have to drink.

Well.. to follow your reasoning, since He told His apostles to "eat" by extension that must mean "they" are to eat and we are not to eat since "He didn't say that we all have to eat. As I see it, your reasoning is deeply flawed.

My son is always given the tiniest drop of wine with a miniscule crumb of bread in it. He opens his mouth so wide and looks so happy to receive. I always feel bad because I end up smiling so big and giggling a little to watch him receive so happily. Most people are so solemn and serious when they approach the cup. So I really stick out with my big grin and my son with his mouth open anticipating with a big smile on his face.

You have the right attitude. He said, "Rejoice!" Nothing better than seeing your child enter heaven.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them? And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed.

Very good point! When I was a Roman Catholic, there was a peiod of time when the priest kept finding the wafer host stuck under the pew with a wad of bubble gum. The priest was irrate--the laity were horrified. The priests and the Eucharistic ministers had to begin watching very closely that the people consumed the host before they walked away.

I hate it when I hear stories like this. Alas, they are too often true. In response to reports of abuse, the Archbishop of Bologna in Italy just banned Communion in the hand in large churches of his archdiocese. Good for him---he's following Pope Benedict's lead.

A great story illustrating this point is one about St John of San Francisco. Once he was taking the Eucharist to a women in the hospital who was in the final stages of rabies....

A good friend of mine witnessed a woman receive Communion but then promptly vomit back into the Chalice. My friend tells me that the priest, without hesitating, drank the entire contents of the Chalice, puke and all. God bless that holy priest!

We believe that Christ instituted the Eucharist as two species to symbolize the separation of his body and blood as in his death on the cross. For this reason both species must be present at the mass and at least the priest must consume the sacred contents of the chalice.However, Christ is not half present in one species and half present in the other. He is fully present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the host as well as fully present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the contents of the chalice. For this reason it is not necessary that every person recieve under both kinds as he will recieve the whole Christ under either species. However, if you feel called to recieve under both kinds, that option is readily available in many parishes.I know that Byzantine Christians always recieve under both kinds. But, do they believe that Christ is fully present under each species or must both species be recieved in order to recieve the whole Christ?

I heard of a case in a Byzantine Catholic Church where a parishoner had a problem with alcohol and in that case, he received only the Consecrated Bread and not the wine. Similarly, this was done in the case of a child who had a problem with the alcohol.

For us, the body and blood is co-mingled. The Latins separate them. Why?

No, Latins do not. After the Pater Noster and before the Agnus Dei, the priest breaks a fraction of the Host, makes three signs of the cross over the chalice with it saying, "The Peace of the Lord be alway with you." Response, "And with thy spirit," and drops the piece of the Host in the chalice. He then says, "May this commingling and consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ obtain for all who receive it eternal life." This part of the Mass is called the Fraction.

I remember seeing, when I served at Byzantine rite Orthodox parishes, that if multiple clergy were at the altar, the consecrated bread was administered to clergy first (all priests and then deacons) after which, the wine from the chalice was administered (in the same order). The laity then are communed by spoon with all of the bread and wine combined in the chalice. But I am sure that the chalice, from which the clergy had communed after taking the consecreated bread on its own, had fractions of consecrated bread in it -- placed there at some point during the Liturgy.

But back to my point, the chalice in a Latin-rite Mass does indeed have a piece of the Host in it.

But didn't the spoon appear to stop the abuse of people taking the "bread" home with them? And the blessed bread and wine afterwards to make sure it was consumed.

Very good point! When I was a Roman Catholic, there was a peiod of time when the priest kept finding the wafer host stuck under the pew with a wad of bubble gum. The priest was irrate--the laity were horrified. The priests and the Eucharistic ministers had to begin watching very closely that the people consumed the host before they walked away.

I hate it when I hear stories like this. Alas, they are too often true. In response to reports of abuse, the Archbishop of Bologna in Italy just banned Communion in the hand in large churches of his archdiocese. Good for him---he's following Pope Benedict's lead.

I think that the reverence or rather the apparent lack of it that is seen in many Catholic liturgical celebrations is a real problem for Catholics if they are serious and want to work toward reconcilation with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I think that the reverence or rather the apparent lack of it that is seen in many Catholic liturgical celebrations is a real problem for Catholics if they are serious and want to work toward reconcilation with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

There are two things that contribute to that, and I'm not sure how they would be addressed:

1. "Anonymous" sacraments, specifically, Confession and Communion

2. Large size of most Catholic parishes

Roman Catholic priests are technically guardians of the Sacrament, as are Orthodox priests, but if you have no idea who you are giving the Sacrament to, how can you guard it?

Logged

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010. May his memory be eternal!